With all due respect median, the point isn't about "proving" an external world exists. The point is that it makes no sense to acknowledge an external world from a purely materialistic viewpoint.

And it makes no sense from your point of view either. Your basis for belief in the "immaterial" is rooted in the material. If you are a brain in a jar, the concept of god is just as much a part of the experiment as science, the earth or me. No matter what, you have no way to know anything.

that doesn't even make sense. you deduce via logic. Empiricism is evidence based. you go look and verify through data. But if we are just brains in jars, or dreams by a god, then there is no evidence for us to observe.

I doubt they do it any more than any one else. But if they do it is because xians are self righteous hypocrites who piss all over jesus H who told them to not be judgmental. Maybe if you guys weren't such jerks about casting the first stone, we would not have to point out what a bunch of hypocrites you are.

That said, I don't think it is about that so much as it is a question of what good xianity is for practical ethics and morality. If you it does not keep you guys in line, well, what makes you so special?

Guess what, guys? "Rational thought" doesn't work on things you personally witnessed with your own eyeballs.

Oh really? From what you've said, you did not actually witness anything. You heard from someone else the dog was ill. Then you heard from someone else it was not. what exactly did you witness, young man?

With all due respect median, the point isn't about "proving" an external world exists. The point is that it makes no sense to acknowledge an external world from a purely materialistic viewpoint. This is because you can not say what exists without any senses around to describe it.

Idealism doesn't have this problem because everything exists in God's mind. An external world only makes sense with Idealism, not materialism.

Idealism: We can empirically deduce that our senses are used to describe things and derive all knowledge. So since everything is known through a mind, it makes sense to posit an eternal infinite mind that perceives all things.

It makes no sense to say: "Since everything is known through minds, we'll just go ahead and claim we know exactly what exists when no minds are around to describe it."

It's a huge conundrum.

To your first attempt at a point, you haven't escaped the problem by restating idealism. Merely restating it does absolutely nothing for you. Have you studied Kant's refutation yet? I'm waiting for you to actually do your homework and catch up.

To your second PURE ASSERTION, you have nothing. All you're doing is ASSUMING your position in advance (which is circular reasoning). You are question begging and it doesn't advance you any closer to where you so badly want to go. Making up shit which you haven't demonstrated is actual (or part of reality) in order to avoid a problem in your philosophical position (as Berkeley also tried) is irrational. Anyone can makeup any imaginary thing they want in an attempt to solve a philosophical issue. It does nothing. No, it does not "make sense to posit an eternal infinite mind". That is your a priori assumption and via Occam's Razor it goes bye-bye.

To your third nonsense claim, you are assuming (as is your MO) what 'knowledge' is, and what it means to know things. You are also assuming what people claim about knowledge of the external world. You clearly have not done your junior philosophy homework.

Yes, your worldview is a huge conundrum. You've gotten yourself into idealism (by assumption, where nothing exists but idea) and now you're desperately trying to get out by making more assumptions. EPIC FAIL.

You said you had to be omniscient to know if it was a demon who cured the dog then you asserted it was Yahweh without any proof in reply 1526.

Your demon tried to cover this up by saying if there is no fear there is no danger in 1529. This is not only a contradiction of the need to be omniscient, it is also wrong. Demons give false information like that.

I tried to explain with the example of a drunk that you were not aware of the danger, and like a drunk that you were calling your demon Yahweh. It should be obvious to you that the danger which you do not see is greater than the one you do see. Your demon knew this and closed your mind to the danger which I had clearly pointed out. In 1531 you were in complete denial of any danger calling it "nothing". Do you not see how dangerous this is? Your demon is able to hold you so easily precisely because it does not let you see the danger.

The other issues which you ignored are the nature of what you saw. You said you did not care what I thought about it. Would you not want to know? Your demon does not want you to know.

Also you have not answered whether you agree that demons give false information and lies.

Your tu quoque points are irrelevant because I am only discussing your perception, nothing more. Tu quoque means to attempt to discredit a general idea by one person's inconsistency. I am not trying to do that so your demon has been giving you false definitions again just to confuse you.

Yes, your worldview is a huge conundrum. You've gotten yourself into idealism (by assumption, where nothing exists but idea) and now you're desperately trying to get out by making more assumptions. EPIC FAIL.

Are you serious?W.W.G.H.A proves it time and time again. You are just not willing to accept anything that goes against what you/your demon has put in your head. As has been stated many times, the burden of proof is not on atheists- we are not the ones stating that some god(s) exist.

I highly doubt 2% actually follow ALL the rules. More like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% do.-Nam

Heaven must be like a party that nobody actually wants to go too but feel they should.I guess you would find peace there as it would be pretty empty.Hell, on the other hand, must be where all the cool people hang out.

Yes, your worldview is a huge conundrum. You've gotten yourself into idealism (by assumption, where nothing exists but idea) and now you're desperately trying to get out by making more assumptions. EPIC FAIL.

That's where you are wrong. Idealism is based on nothing but empiricism, not assumption.

The whole point of Idealism is that Berkeley believed that Locke did not carry the principles of empiricism far enough.

No, I'm not wrong. You haven't done your homework in philosophy and it shows! It's funny though how you decided to only respond to one part of my rebuttal above. If you admit that you believe Berkeley's argument was successful in eliminating the external material world (which I reject) then you still have ALL of your work ahead you, b/c you are in the same boat as everyone (according to your own admission). Merely positing an "eternal mind" as an answer to your next ASSUMPTION (that only mind exists) does nothing (as it is ad hoc).

Skeptic, your Christmas presents are clear evidence of the existence of Santa. If a child asked Santa for gifts and they came, then Santa is real. (Just like if you ask god to heal a dog and the dog gets better, then god is real. Right?)

No presents under the tree means no Santa? Uh uh, not at all.

Maybe Santa just decided not to bring you any presents--who can know the will of Santa? Santa answers yes, no and not yet.

Maybe Santa had something even better in mind for you than mere presents. You just have to be patient. Santa is not a vending machine.

Or Santa did bring you some presents, but they are spiritual presents, not silly material things like toys and treats and clothes and crap.

If Santa actually appeared and gave you the presents in person, then there would be no need for faith. Everyone would just believe in Santa and it would not be special.

And, when your parents came home with gifts, it is because that is how Santa works nowadays, through human beings......

There's a reason people abandon Satan belief but not God belief.I am sure you are intelligent enough to figure out the reason on your own.

Though, there's the bribe and penalty between believing in Santa, it's simply a matter of getting presents at Christmas... and most parents still give presents after you state disbelief...

Noticing the similarities between God and Santa the asking about the disbelief in God nets a very different response. Between the bribery and threats of not only eternal damnation, but even being thrown out to fend for yourself at a very young age. The truth has nothing to fear from doubt and questions. If every truth pointed to God then there's nothing for the church to fear, but it doesn't. The truth causes the church to loose it's control overpeople that it's held onto for thousands of years. While there are a few good people deluded to believe in the church, it's really about power and control, not love or truth.

It is funny how such "refutations" are always destroyed, i wonder why? Ohh, could it be that the refutation was incorrect?

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Plenty of people seem to think the apologetic arguments are a stonewall.

Plenty of them haven't been refuted, such as the design argument and the moral argument.

I used to be a Christian apologist, debating with non-believers (using those arguments and others just like you are trying now) for many years. Sorry, those argument HAVE been refuted, many times over. You just aren't looking online for their refutations because you aren't sincere and don't WANT to be rational or impartial. You are slanted toward the assumption you made at the outset and you're hard set on defending it no matter what. That's called confirmation bias. It shows that you don't care about truth (as you already admitted toward the beginning of this discussion). What also shows it is how you ignore people's posts (like mine above) when you have been refuted.

As long as you can avoid reading the refutations, you can keep your faith in their nonexistence.

You mean like how you guys ignore the refutations of evolution?

This debate is endless.

The definition of evolution is a change of inherited characteristics of biological populations over time. You think that's been refuted? LOL. No, it hasn't. You are just ignorant of the science and reject it a priori due to your preciously protected assumption about the bible.

This debate doesn't have to be endless. Just stop using irrational (illogical) arguments and it will be over.

As long as you can avoid reading the refutations, you can keep your faith in their nonexistence.

You mean like how you guys ignore the refutations of evolution?

This debate is endless.

The definition of evolution is a change of inherited characteristics of biological populations over time. You think that's been refuted? LOL. No, it hasn't. You are just ignorant of the science and reject it a priori due to your preciously protected assumption about the bible.

This debate doesn't have to be endless. Just stop using irrational (illogical) arguments and it will be over.

No I have asked many times for empirical evidence of a new species coming from the first cells that existed.

According to evolution, the first cells came into existence billions of years ago. How do we get a different type of species from those cells?

Those cells turned into.......what?

Nobody has answered this yet. Dawkins was stumped too.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)